On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 07:26:28AM +0200, Xavier Maillard wrote: > Hello, > > Since ages, I wanted to replace CVS here. > > I firstly tried to find out all the most interesting candidates for > this. I have now a list of 2 items: subversion and tla. > > I tried to setup tla but didn't achieve totally this task. Did you follow the tutorial? It does explain how to do this step-by-step. If you find any flaws or omissions, then please do contact the tutorial maintainer. Also, there are a couple of simpler, tutorials that address just the basics of setting up and using tla. A very nice one is available here: http://repose.cx/ArchPrimer.html > So now I am facing a dilemna: what is the most appropriate software to > finally replace my old CVS (which hasn't satisfied me) ? > > For the little I tried tla, it seems smaller and easier to setup but as tla does have far fewer code dependencies than Subversion does, but this is not much an issue when both are in Debian. It is rather different to both Subversion and CVS, tho, so it does take some getting used to. > I didn't try at all subversion, this may be wrong. > > So I claim your help in making my choice: what would you use to replace > CVS ? Subversion claims to be the CVS replacement but tla seems also > interesting to me. This depends on what you're trying to do. Subversion really is CVS with some annoyances fixed. It has a much more efficient network protocol, handles renames sensibly, has much better branching support, detects (and sensibly diffs) binary files and is all round nicer to work with than CVS. On the other hand, it doesn't really extend the core CVS functionality very far. It is still based around the single repository model. You can't branch other people's repositories. You can't email single changesets around. You can't commit on a disconnected laptop. Etc. > Does anybody have feedback/recommendations for the 2 solutions ? It really depends on what you're doing. If you just want to version some code you're working on at home or at work, then either will do. One interesting feature of tla is that it versions symlinks, which Subversion almost certainly won't do until after version 1.0. > Currently I am still using CVS 'till I can switch definetely to > something else. This is a good plan. Sure, you miss lots of nifty features, but Subversion has cvs2svn and arch will eventually have "cscvs" for converting from CVS. > P.S: Do not CC me please. This is indeed the Debian mailing list policy. Feel free to flame those who do CC you ;-) -- Rob Weir <rweir@ertius.org> | mlspam@ertius.org | Do I look like I want a CC? Words of the day: ASO Noriega Panama Watergate Mossad Bosnia Ortega Area 51
Attachment:
pgp5kXxyVWF1U.pgp
Description: PGP signature